G.R. No.

72670, September 12, 1986

SATURNINA GALMAN, REYNALDO GALMAN AND JOSE P. BENGZON, MARY CONCEPCION BAUTISTA, JOAQUIN G.
BERNAS, S.J., M. BELLARMINE BERNAS, O.S.B., FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, SOLITA COLLAS-MONSOD, SANTIAGO DUMLAO,
JR., MARIA FERIA, MARCELO B. FERNAN, FRANCISCO GARCHITORENA,** ANDREW GONZALEZ, JOSE C. LAURETA,
SALVADOR P. LOPEZ, FELIX K. MARAMBA, JR., CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA, JAIME V. ONGPIN, FELIX PEREZ, JOSE B.L.
REYES, JOSE E. ROMERO, JR., RAMON DEL ROSARIO, JR., RICARDO J. ROMULO, AUGUSTO SANCHEZ, EMMANUEL V.
SORIANO , DAVID SYCIP, ENRIQUE SYQUIA, CRISTINA TAN, JESUS VARGAS, BERNARDO M. VILLEGAS, VICENTE
JAYME,*** PETITIONERS, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION (REPRESENTED BY JUSTICE MANUEL PAMARAN,
CHAIRMAN,AND JUSTICE AUGUSTO AMORES AND BIENVENIDO VERA CRUZ, MEMBERS), JUSTICE BERNARDO
FERNANDEZ (OMBUDSMAN) AND GEN. FABIAN C. VER, MAJ. GEN. PROSPERO A. OLIVAS, BRIG. GEN. LUTHER A.
CUSTODIO, COL., ARTURO G. CUSTODIO, COL. VICENTE B. TIGAS, JR., CAPT. FELIPE VALERIO, CAPT. LLEWELYN
KAVINTA, CAPT. ROMEO M. BAUTISTA, 2ND LT. JESUS CASTRO, SGT. PABLO MARTINEZ, SGT. ARNULFO DE MESA, SGT.
TOMAS FERNANDEZ, SGT. CLARO LAT, SGT. FILOMENO MIRANDA, SGT. ROLANDO C. DE GUZMAN, SGT. ERNESTO M.
MATEO, SGT. RODOLFO M. DESOLONG, SGT. LEONARDO MOJICA, SGT. PEPITO TORIO, SGT. ARMANDO DELA CRUZ, SGT.
PROSPERO A. BONA, CIC ROGELIO MORENO, CIC MARIO LAZAGA, AIC CORDOVA G. ESTELO, AIC ANICETO ACUPIDO
AND HERMILO GOSUICO, RESPONDENTS.

RESOLUTION
TEEHANKEE, C.J.
Last August 21st, our nation marked with solemnity and for the first time in freedom the third anniversary of the treacherous
assassination of foremost opposition leader former Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr. imprisoned for almost eight years since the
imposition of martial law in September, 1972 by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos, he was sentenced to death by firing squad by a
military tribunal for common offenses alleged to have been committed long before the declaration of martial law and whose
jurisdiction over him as a civilian entitled to trial by judicial process by civil courts he repudiated. Ninoy pleaded in vain that the
military tribunals are admittedly not courts but mere instruments and subject to the control of the President as created by him under
the General Orders issued by him as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and that he had already been
publicly indicted and adjudged guilty by the President of the charges in a nationwide press conference held on August 24, 1971 when
he declared the evidence against Ninoy "not only strong but overwhelming."[1] This followed the Plaza Miranda bombing of August 21,
1971 of the proclamation rally of the opposition Liberal Party candidates for the November, 1971 elections (when eight persons were
killed and practically all of the opposition candidates headed by Senator Jovito Salonga and many more were seriously injured), and
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under Proclamation No. 889 on August 23, 1971. The massacre was
instantly attributed to the communists but the truth has never been known. But the then President never filed the said charges
against Ninoy in the civil courts.

Ninoy Aquino was nevertheless thereafter allowed in May, 1980 to leave the country to undergo successful heart surgery. After three
years of exile and despite the regime's refusal to give him a passport, he sought to return home "to strive for a genuine national
reconciliation founded on justice." He was to be cold-bloodedly killed while under escort away by soldiers from his plane that had just
landed at the Manila International Airport on that fateful day at past 1 p.m. His brain was smashed by a bullet fired point-blank into
the back of his head by a murderous assassin, notwithstanding that the airport was ringed by airtight security of close to 2,000
soldiers — and "from a military viewpoint, it (was) technically impossible to get inside (such) a cordon." [2] The military investigators
reported within a span of three hours that the man who shot Aquino (whose identity was then supposed to be unknown and was
revealed only days later as Rolando Galman, although he was the personal friend of accused Col. Arturo Custodio who picked him up
from his house on August 17, 1983) was a communist-hired gunman, and that the military escorts gunned him down in turn. The
military later filmed a re-enactment of the killing scripted according to this version and continuously replayed it on all TV channels as
if it were taken live on the spot. The then President instantly accepted the military version and repeated it in a nationally televised
press conference that he gave late in the evening of August 22, 1983, wherein he said, in order to induce disbelief that the military
had a hand in the killing, that "if the purpose was to eliminate Aquino, this was not the way to do it."

The national tragedy shocked the conscience of the entire nation and outraged the free world. The large masses of people who joined
in the ten-day period of national mourning and came out in millions in the largest and most orderly public turnout for Ninoy's funeral
reflected their grief for his martyrdom and their yearning for the truth, justice and freedom.

The then President was constrained to create a Fact Finding Board[3] to investigate "the treacherous and vicious assassination of
former Senator Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. on August 21, 1983 [which] has to all Filipinos become a national tragedy and national shame
specially because of the early distortions and exaggerations in both foreign and local media[4] so that all right thinking and honest
men desire to ventilate the truth through fare, independent and dispassionate investigation by prestigious and free investigators."
After two false starts,[5] he finally constituted the Board[6] on October 22, 1983 which held 125 hearing days commencing November
3, 1983 (including 3 hearings in Tokyo and 8 hearings in Los Angeles, California) and heard the testimonies' of 194 witnesses
recorded in 20,377 pages of transcripts, until the submission of their minority and majority reports to the President on October 23
and 24, 1984. This was to mark another first anywhere in the world wherein the minority report was submitted one day ahead by the
ponente thereof, the chairman, who was received congenially and cordially by the then President who treated the report as if it were
the majority report instead of a minority report of one and forthwith referred it to respondent Tanodbayan "for final resolution
through the legal system" and for trial in the Sandiganbayan which was better known as a graft court; and the majority report of the
four other members was submitted on the following day to the then President who coldly received them and could scarcely conceal
his instant rejection of their report with the grim statement that "I hope you can live with your conscience with what you have done."

The fact is that both majority and minority reports were one in rejecting the military version as propounded by the chief investigator,
respondent Gen. Olivas, that Rolando Galman was the NPA hired assassin, stating that "the evidence shows [to the contrary] that
Rolando Galman had no subversive affiliations." They were in agreement that "only the soldiers in the staircase with Sen. Aquino
could have shot him;" that Galman, the military's "fall guy" was "not the assassin of Sen. Aquino" and that "the SWAT troopers who
gunned down Galman and the soldiers who escorted Sen. Aquino down the service stairs, deliberately and in conspiracy with one
another, gave a perjured story to us regarding the alleged shooting by Galman of Sen. Aquino and the mowing down, in turn, of
Galman himself;" in short, that Ninoy's assassination was the product of a military conspiracy, not a communist plot. The only
difference between the two reports is that the majority report found all the twenty-six private respondents abovenamed in the title of
the case headed by then AFP Chief General Fabian C. Ver involved in the military conspiracy and therefore "indictable for the
premeditated killing of Senator Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. and Rolando Galman at the MIA on August 21, 1983;" while the chairman's
minority report would exclude nineteen of them and limit as plotters "the six persons who were on the service stairs while Senator
Aquino was descending" and "General Luther Custodio x x x because the criminal plot could not have been planned and implemented
without his intervention."

The chairman wrote in her minority report (somewhat prophetically) that "The epilogue to our work lies in what will transpire in
accordance with the action that the Office of the President may thereafter direct to be taken." The four-member majority report (also
prophetically) wrote in the epilogue (after warning the forces who adhere to an alien and intolerable political ideology against
unscrupulously using the report "to discredit our traditionally revered institutions"), that "the tragedy opened our eyes and for the
first time confirmed our worst fears of what unchecked evil would be capable of doing." They wrote:
"The task of the Board was clear and unequivocal. This task was not only to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding the
death of the late former Senator. Of greater significance is the awesome responsibility of the Board to uphold righteousness over
evil, justice over injustice, rationality over irrationality, humaneness over inhumanity. The task was indeed a painful test, the
inevitable result of which will restore our country's honored place among the sovereign nations of the free world where peace, law
and order, freedom, and justice are a way of life.

"More than any other event in contemporary Philippine history, the killing of the late former Senator Aquino has brought into sharper
focus, the ills pervading Philippine society. It was the concretization of the horror that has been haunting this country for decades,
routinely manifested by the breakdown of peace and order, economic instability, subversion, graft and corruption, and an increasing
number of abusive elements in what are otherwise noble institutions in our country the military and law enforcement agencies. We
are, however, convinced that, by and large, the great majority of the officers and men of these institutions have remained decent
and honorable, dedicated to their noble mission in the service of our country and people.

"The tragedy opened our eyes and for the first time confirmed our worst fears of what unchecked evil would be capable of doing. As
former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban observes. 'Nobody who has great authority can be trusted not to go beyond its proper
limits.' Social apathy, passivity and indifference and neglect have spawned in secret a dark force that is bent on destroying the
values held sacred by freedom-loving people.

"To assert our proper place in the civilized world, it is imperative that public officials should regard public service as a reflection of
human ideals in which the highest sense of moral values and integrity are strictly required.

"A tragedy like that which happened on August 21, 1983, and the crisis that followed, would have normally caused the resignation of
the Chief of the Armed Forces in a country where public office is viewed with highest esteem and respect and where the moral
responsibilities of public officials transcend all other considerations."
It is equally the fact that the then President through all his recorded public acts and statements from the beginning disdained and
rejected his own Board's above findings and insisted on the military version of Galman being Ninoy's assassin. In upholding this view
that "there is no involvement of anyone in his government in the assassination," he told David Briscoe (then AP Manila Bureau Chief)
in a Radio-TV interview on September 9, 1983 that "I am convinced that if any member of my government were involved, I would
have known somehow xxx Even at a fairly low level, I would have known. I know how they think. I know what they are thinking
of."[7] He told CBS in another interview in May, 1984 (as his Fact Finding Board was holding its hearings) the following:
"CBS: 'But indeed there has been recent evidence that seems to contradict earlier reports, namely, the recent evidence seems to
indicate that some of the guards may have been responsible (for shooting Ninoy).' "

"MARCOS: 'Well, you are of course wrong. What you have been reading are the newspapers and the newspaper reports have been
biased. The evidence still proves that Galman was the killer. The evidence also shows that there were intelligence reports connecting
the communist party to the killing.' "[8] In his reply of October 25, 1984 to General Ver's letter of the same date going on leave of
absence upon release of the Board's majority report implicating him, he wrote that "(W)e are even more aware, general, that the
circumstances under which the board has chosen to implicate you in its findings are fraught with doubt and great contradictions of
opinion and testimony. And we are deeply disturbed that on the basis of so-called evidence, you have been so accused by some
members of the Board," and extended "My very best wishes to you and your family for a speedy resolution of your case," [9] even as
he announced that he would return the general to his position as AFP Chief "if he is acquitted by the Sandiganbayan." In an interview
on June 4, 1985 with the Gamma Photo Agency, as respondent court was hearing the cases, he was quoted as saying that "as will
probably be shown, those witnesses (against the accused) are perjured witnesses." [10]
It was against this setting that on November 11, 1985 petitioners Saturnina Galman and Reynaldo Galman, mother and son,
respectively, of the late Rolando Galman, and twenty-nine (29) other petitioners, composed of three former Justices of this Court,
five incumbent and former university presidents, a former AFP Chief of Staff, outstanding members of the Philippine Bar and solid
citizens of the community, filed the present action alleging that respondents Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan committed serious
irregularities constituting mistrial and resulting in miscarriage of justice and gross violation of the constitutional rights of the
petitioners and the sovereign people of the Philippines to due process of law. They asserted that the Tanodbayan did not represent
the interest of the people when he failed to exert genuine and earnest efforts to present vital and important testimonial and
documentary evidence for the prosecution and that the Sandiganbayan Justices were biased, prejudiced and partial in favor of the
accused, and that their acts "clouded with the gravest doubts the sincerity of government to find out the truth about the Aquino
assassination." Petitioners prayed for the immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order restraining the respondent
Sandiganbayan from rendering a decision on the merits in the pending criminal cases which it had scheduled on November 20, 1985
and that judgment be rendered declaring a mistrial and nullifying the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan and ordering a re-trial
before an impartial tribunal by an unbiased prosecutor.[10-a]

At the hearing on November 18, 1985 of petitioners' prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining respondent court
from rendering a decision in the two criminal cases before it, the Court resolved by nine-to-two votes[11] to issue the restraining
order prayed for. The Court also granted petitioners a five-day period to file a reply to respondents' separate comments and
respondent Tanodbayan a three-day period to submit a copy of his 84-page memorandum for the prosecution as filed in the
Sandiganbayan, the signature page of which alone had been submitted to the Court as Annex 5 of his comment.

But ten days later on November 28, 1985, the Court by the same nine-to-two-vote ratio in reverse,[12] resolved to dismiss the
petition and to lift the temporary restraining order issued ten days earlier enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering its
decision.[13] The same Court majority denied petitioners' motion for a new 5-day period counted from receipt of respondent
Tanodbayan's memorandum for the prosecution (which apparently was not served on them and which they alleged was "very
material to the question of his partiality, bias and prejudice" within which to file a consolidated reply thereto and to respondents'
separate comments, by an eight-to three vote, with Justice Gutierrez joining the dissenters.[14]

On November 29, 1985, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that the dismissal did not indicate the legal ground for
such action and urging that the case be set for a full hearing on the merits because if the charge of partiality and bias against the
respondents and suppression of vital evidence by the prosecution are proven, the petitioners would be entitled to the reliefs
demanded: The People are entitled to due process which requires an impartial tribunal and an unbiased prosecutor. If the State is
deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and convict because certain material evidence is suppressed by the prosecution and the
tribunal is not impartial, then the entire proceedings would be null and void. Petitioners prayed that the Sandiganbayan be restrained
from promulgating their decision as scheduled anew on December 2, 1985.

On December 5, 1985, the Court required the respondents to comment on the motion for reconsideration but issued no restraining
order. Thus, on December 2, 1985, as scheduled, respondent Sandiganbayan issued its decision acquitting all the accused of the
crime charged, declaring them innocent and totally absolving them of any civil liability. This marked another unusual first in that
respondent Sandiganbayan in effect convicted the very victim Rolando Galman (who was not on trial) as the assassin of Ninoy
contrary to the very information and evidence submitted by the prosecution. In opposition, respondents submitted that with the
Sandiganbayan's verdict of acquittal, the instant case had become moot and academic.

On February 4, 1986, the same Court majority denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration for lack of merit, with the writer and
Justice Abad Santos maintaining our dissent.

On March 20, 1986, petitioners filed their motion to admit their second motion for reconsideration attached therewith. The thrust of
the second motion for reconsideration was the startling and therefore unknown revelations of Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera as
reported in the March 6, 1986 issue of the Manila Times entitled "Aquino Trial a Sham," that the then President had ordered the
respondents Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan Bernardo Fernandez and the prosecution panel headed by Herrera to whitewash the
criminal cases against the 26 respondents accused and produce a verdict of acquittal.

On April 3, 1986, the Court granted the motion to admit the second motion for reconsideration and ordered the respondents to
comment thereon.[15]

Respondent Tanodbayan Bernardo Fernandez stated in his Manifestation filed on April 11, 1986 that he had ceased to hold office as
Tanodbayan as of April 8, 1986 when he was replaced by the new Tanodbayan, Raul M. Gonzales, but reiterating his position in his
comment on the petition, he added "relative to the reported alleged revelations of Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera, herein
respondent never succumbed to any alleged attempts to influence his actuations in the premises, having instead successfully resisted
perceived attempts to exert pressure to drop the case after preliminary investigation and actually ordered the filing and prosecution
of the two (2) murder cases below against herein private-party respondents." He candidly admitted also in his memorandum: "There
is not much that need be said about the existence of pressure. That there were pressures can hardly be denied; in fact, it has never
been denied."[15-a] He submitted that "even as he vehemently denies insinuations of any direct or indirect complicity or participation
in any alleged attempt to supposedly whitewash the cases below, x x x should this Honorable Court find sufficient cause to justify the
reopening and retrial of the cases below, he would welcome such development so that any wrong that had been caused may be
righted and so that, at the very least the actuations of herein respondent in the premises may be reviewed and reexamined,
confident as he is that the end will show that he had done nothing in the premises that violated his trust as Tanodbayan
(Ombudsman)." New Tanodbayan Raul M. Gonzales in his comment of April 14, 1986 "interposed no objection to the reopening of
the trial of the cases x x x as, in fact, he urged that the said cases be reopened in order that justice could take its course."

Respondents Justices of the Sandiganbayan First Division in their collective comment of April 9, 1986 stated that the trial of the
criminal cases by them was valid and regular and decided on the basis of evidence presented and the law applicable, but manifested
that "if it is true that the former Tanodbayan and the Deputy Tanodbayan, Chief of the Prosecution Panel, were pressured into
suppressing vital evidence which would probably alter the result of the trial, Answering Respondents would not interpose any
objection to the reopening of those cases, if only to allow justice to take its course." Respondent Sandiganbayan Justice Bienvenido
C. Vera Cruz, in a separate comment, asserted that he passed no note to anyone; the note being bandied about is not in his
handwriting; he had nothing to do with the writing of the note or of any note of any kind intended for any lawyer of the defense or
even of the prosecution; and requested for an investigation by this Court to settle the note-passing issue once and for all.

Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera, in his comment of April 14, 1986 affirmed the allegations in the second motion for
reconsideration that he revealed that the Sandiganbayan Justices and Tanodbayan prosecutors were ordered by Marcos to whitewash
the Aquino-Galman murder case. He amplified his revelations, as follows:
"1. AB INITIO, A VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL!

Incidents during the preliminary investigation showed ominous signs that the fate of the criminal case on the death of Ex-Senator
Benigno Aquino and Rolando Galman on August 21, 1983 wasdooned to an ignominous end. Malacañang wanted dismissal to the
extent that a prepared resolution was sent to the Investigating Panel (composed of the undersigned, Fiscals Ernesto Bernabe and
Leonardo Tamayo) for signature. This, of course, was resisted by the panel, and a resolution charging all the respondents as
principals was forwarded to the Tanodbayan on January 10, 1985.

2. MALACAÑANG CONFERENCE PLANNED SCENARIO OF TRIAL.

At 6:00 p.m. of said date (January 10) Mr. Ferdinand E. Marcos (the former President) summoned to Malacañang Justice Bernardo
Fernandez (the Tanodbayan), Sandiganbayan Justice Manuel Pamaran (the Presiding Justice) and all the members of the Panel.

Also present at the meeting were Justice Manuel Lazaro (the Coordinator) and Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, who left earlier, came back
and left again. The former President had a copy of the panel's signed resolution (charging all accused as principals), evidently
furnished him in advance, and with prepared notes on the contents thereof.

The former President started by vehemently maintaining that Galman shot Aquino at the tarmac. Albeit initially the undersigned
argued against the theory, to remain silent was the more discreet posture when the former President became emotional (he was
quite sick then).

During a good part of the conference, the former President talked about Aquino and the communists, lambasting the Agrava Board,
specially the Legal Panel. Shifting to the military he rumbled on such statements as: 'It will be bloody x x x Gen. Ramos, though
close to me, is getting ambitious and poor Johnny does not know what to do' xxx 'our understanding with Gen. Ramos is that his
stint is only temporary, but he is becoming ambitious;' x x x 'the boys were frantic when they heard that they will be charged in
court, and will be detained at city jail.'

From outright dismissal, the sentiment veered towards a more pragmatic approach. The former President more or less conceded that
for political and legal reasons all the respondents should be charged in court. Politically, as it will become evident that the
government was serious in pursuing the case towards its logical conclusion, and thereby ease public demonstrations; on the other
hand, legally, it was perceived that after (not IF) they are acquitted, double jeopardy would inure. The former President ordered then
that the resolution be revised by categorizing the participation of each respondent.

In the matter of custody of the accused pendente lite the Coordinator was ordered to get in touch with Gen. Narciso Cabrera, Gen.
Vicente Eduardo and Director Jolly Bugarin to put on record that they had no place in their respective institutions. The existence of
PD No. 1950 (giving custody to commanding officers of members of AFP charged in court) was never mentioned.

It was decided that the presiding justice (First Division) would personally handle the trial, and assurance was made by him that it
would be finished in four to six months, pointing out that, with the recent effectivity of the New Rules on Criminal Procedure, the trial
could be expedited.

Towards the end of the two hour meeting and after the script had been tacitly mapped out, the former President uttered: 'Magmoro-
moro na lang kayo.'

The parting words of the former President were: 'Thank you for your cooperation. I know how to reciprocate.'

While still in the palace grounds on the way out, the undersigned manifested his desire to the Tanodbayan to resign from the panel,
or even the office. This, as well as other moves to this effect, had always been refused. Hoping that with sufficient evidence sincerely
and efficiently presented by the prosecution, all involves in the trial would be conscience-pricked and realize the futility and injustice
of proceeding in accordance with the script, the undersigned opted to say on."
Herrera further added details on the "implementation of the script," such as the holding of a "make-believe raffle" within 18 minutes
of the filing of the Informations with the Sandiganbayan at noon of January 23, 1985, while there were no members of the media;
the installation of TV monitors directly beamed to Malacañang; the installation of a "war room" occupied by the military; attempts to
direct and stifle witnesses for the prosecution; the suppression of the evidence that could be given by U.S. Airforce men about the
"scrambling" of Ninoy's plane; the suppression of rebuttal witnesses and the bias and partiality of the Sandiganbayan; its cavalier
disregard of his plea that it "should not decide these cases on the merits without first making a final ruling on the Motion for
Inhibition;" and the Presiding Justice's over-kill with the declaration that "the Court finds all accused innocent of the crimes charged
in the two informations, and accordingly, they incur neither criminal nor civil liability," adding that "in the almost twenty years that
the undersigned has been the prosecutor in the sala of the Presiding Justice this is the only occasion where civil liability is
pronounced in a decision of acquittal." He "associated himself with the motion for reconsideration and likewise prayed that the
proceedings in the Sandiganbayan and its decision be declared null and void."

New Solicitor General Sedfrey Ordonez' comment of April 25, 1986 submitted that a declaration of mistrial will depend on the
veracity of the evidence supportive of petitioners' claim of suppression of evidence and collusion. He submitted that this would
require reception of evidence by a Court appointed or designated commissioner or body of commissioners (as was done in G.R. No.
71316, Fr. Romano case; and G.R. No. 61016, Morales case; and G.R. No. 70054, Banco Filipino case); and that if petitioners' claim
were substantiated, a reopening of the double murder case is proper to avoid a miscarriage of justice since the verdict of acquittal
would no longer be a valid basis for a double jeopardy claim.

Respondents-accused opposed the second motion for reconsideration and prayed for its denial. Respondent Olivas contended that
the proper step for the government was to file a direct action to annul the judgment of acquittal and at a regular trial present its
evidence of collusion and pressures.

As a whole, all the other respondents raised the issue of double jeopardy, and invoked that the issues had become moot and
academic because of the rendition of the Sandiganbayan's judgment of acquittal of all respondents-accused on December 2, 1985,
with counsels for respondents Ver and Tigas, as well as Olivas, further arguing that assuming that the judgment of acquittal is void
for any reason, the remedy is a direct action to annul the judgment where the burden of proof falls upon the plaintiff to establish by
clear, competent and convincing evidence the cause of the nullity.

After petitioners had filed their consolidated reply, the Court resolved per its resolution of June 5, 1986 to appoint a three-member
commission composed of retired Supreme Court Justice Conrado Vasquez, chairman, and retired Intermediate Appellate Court
Justices Milagros German and Eduardo Caguioa as members, to hear and receive evidence, testimonial and documentary, of the
charges of collusion and pressures and relevant matters, upon prior notice to all parties, and to submit their findings to this Court for
proper disposition. The Commission conducted hearings on 19 days, starting on June 16, 1986 and ending on July 16, 1986. On the
said last day, respondents announced in open hearing that they decided to forego the taking of the projected deposition of former
President Marcos, as his testimony would be merely corroborative of the testimonies of respondents Justice Pamaran and
Tanodbayan Fernandez. On July 31, 1986, it submitted its extensive 64-page Report[16] wherein it discussed fully the evidence
received by it and made a recapitulation of its findings in capsulized form, as follows:
"1. The Office of the Tanodbayan. particularly Justice Fernandez and the Special Investigating Panel composed of Justice Herrera,
Fiscal Bernabe and Special Prosecutor Tamayo, was originally of the view that all of the twenty-six (26) respondents named in the
Agrava Board majority report should all be charged as principals of the crime of double murder for the death of Senator Benigno
Aquino and Rolando Galman.

2. When Malacañang learned of the impending filing of the said charge before the Sandiganbayan. the Special Investigating Panel
having already prepared a draft Resolution recommending such course of action, President Marcos summoned Justice Fernandez, the
three members of the Special Investigating Panel, and Justice Pamaran to a conference in Malacañang in the early evening of
January 10, 1985.

3. In said conference. President Marcos initially expressed his disagreement with the recommendation of the Special Investigating
Panel and disputed the findings of the Agrava Board that it was not Galman who shot Benigno Aquino.

4. Later in the conference, however, President Marcos was convinced of the advisability of filing the murder charge in court so that,
after being acquitted as planned, the accused may no longer be prosecuted in view of the doctrine of double jeopardy.

5. Presumably in order to be assured that not all of the accused would be denied bail during the trial, considering that they would be
charged with capital offenses. President Marcos directed that the several accused be 'categorized' so that some of them would
merely be charged as accomplices and accessories.

6. In addition to said directive. President Marcos ordered that the case be handled personally by Justice Pamaran who should dispose
of it in the earliest possible time.

7. The instructions given in the Malacañang conference were followed to the letter and compliance therewith manifested itself in
several specific instances in the course of the proceedings, such as the changing of the resolution of the special investigating panel,
the filing of the case with the Sandiganbayan and its assignment to Justice Pamaran, suppression of some vital evidence, harassment
of witnesses, recantation of witnesses who gave adverse testimony before the Agrava Board, coaching of defense counsels, the hasty
trial, monitoring of proceedings, and even in the very decision rendered in the case.

8. That expression of President Marcos' desire as to how he wanted the Aquino-Galman case to be handled and disposed of
constituted sufficient pressure on those involved in said task to comply with the same in the subsequent course of the proceedings.

9. That while Justice Pamaran and Justice Fernandez manifested no revulsion against complying with the Malacañang directive.
Justice Herrera played his role with manifestly ambivalent feelings.

10. Sufficient evidence has been ventilated to show a scripted and predetermined manner of handling and disposing of the Aquino-
Galman murder case, as stage-managed from Malacañang and performed by willing dramatis personnae as well as by recalcitrant
ones whipped into line by the omni present influence of an authoritarian ruler."
The Commission submitted the following recommendation.
"Considering the existence of adequate credible evidence showing that the prosecution in the Aquino-Galman case and the Justices
who tried and decided the same acted under the compulsion of some pressure which proved to be beyond their capacity to resist,
and which not only prevented the prosecution to fully ventilate its position and to offer all the evidences which it could have
otherwise presented, but also predetermined the final outcome of the case, the Commission is of the considered thinking and belief,
subject to the better opinion and judgment of this Honorable Court, that the proceedings in the said case have been vitiated by lack
of due process, and hereby respectfully recommends that the prayer in the petition for a declaration of a mistrial in Sandiganbayan
Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011 entitled 'People vs. Luther Custodio, et al.,' be granted."
The Court per its Resolution of July 31, 1986 furnished all the parties with copies of the Report and required them to submit their
objections thereto. It thereafter heard the parties and their objections at the hearing of August 26, 1986 and the matter was
submitted for the Court's resolution.

The Court adopts and approves the Report and its findings and holds on the basis thereof and of the evidence received and
appreciated by the Commission and duly supported by the facts of public record and knowledge set forth above and hereinafter, that
the then President (code-named Olympus) had stage-managed in and from Malacañang Palace "a scripted and predetermined
manner of handling and disposing of the Aquino-Galman murder case;" and that "the prosecution in the Aquino-Galman case and the
Justices who tried and decided the same acted under the compulsion of some pressure which proved to be beyond their capacity to
resist, and which not only prevented the prosecution to fully ventilate its position and to offer all the evidences which it could have
otherwise presented, but also predetermined the final outcome of the case" of total absolution of the twenty-six respondents-accused
of all criminal and civil liability.

The Court finds that the Commission's Report (incorporated herein by reference) and findings and conclusions are duly substantiated
by the evidence and facts of public record. Composed of distinguished members of proven integrity with a combined total of 141
years of experience in the practice of law (55 years) and in the prosecutoral and judicial services (86 years in the trial and appellate
courts), experts at sifting the chaff from the grain,[17] the Commission properly appraised the evidences presented and denials made
by public respondents, thus:
"The desire of President Marcos to have the Aquino-Galman case disposed of in a manner suitable to his purposes was quite
understandable and was but to be expected. The case had stirred unprecedented public outcry and wide international attention. Not
invariably, the finger of suspicion pointed to those then in power who supposedly had the means and the most compelling motive to
eliminate Senator Aquino. Aday or so after the assassination, President Marcos came up with a public statement aired over television
that Senator Aquino was killed not by his military escorts, but by a communist hired gun. It was, therefore, not a source of wonder
that President Marcos would want the case disposed of in a manner consistent with his announced theory thereof which, at the same
time, would clear his name and his administration of any suspected guilty participation in the assassination.

"The calling of the conference was undoubtedly to accomplish thus purpose x x x.

"President Marcos made no bones to conceal his purpose for calling them. From the start, he expressed irritation and displeasure at
the recommendation of the investigating panel to charge all of the twenty-six (26) respondents as principals of the crime of double
murder. He insisted that it was Galman who shot Senator Aquino, and that the findings of the Agrava Board were not supported by
evidence that could stand in court. He discussed and argued with Justice Herrera on this point. Midway in the course of the
discussion, mention was made that the filing of the charge in court would at least mollify public demands and possibly prevent
further street demonstrations. It was further pointed out that such a procedure would be a better arrangement because, if the
accused are charged in court and subsequently acquitted, they may claim the benefit of the doctrine of double jeopardy and thereby
avoid another prosecution if some other witnesses shall appear when President Marcos is no longer in office.
xxx xxx xxx

"After an agreement was reached as to filing the case, instead of dismissing it, but with some of the accused to be charged merely as
accomplices or accessories, and the question of preventive custody of the accused having thereby received satisfactory solution,
President Marcos took up the matter of who would try the case and how long it would take to be finished.

"According to Justice Herrera, President Marcos told Justice Pamaran 'point blank' to personally handle the case. This was denied by
Justice Pamaran. No similar denial was voiced by Justice Fernandez in the entire course of his two-day testimony. Justice Pamaran
explained that such order could not have been given inasmuch as it was not yet certain then that the Sandiganbayan would try the
case and, besides, cases therein are assigned by raffle to a division and not to a particular Justice thereof.

"It was preposterous to expect Justice Pamaran to admit having received such presidential directive. His denial, however, falls to
pieces in the light of the fact that the case was indeed handled by him after being assigned to the division headed by him. A
supposition of mere coincidence is at once dispelled by the circumstance that he was the only one from the Sandiganbayan called to
the Malacañang conference wherein the said directive was given x x x.

"The giving of such directive to Justice Pamaran may also be inferred from his admission that he gave President Marcos the possible
time frame when asked as to how long it would take him to finish the case.

"The testimony of Justice Herrera that, during the conference, and after an agreement was reached on filing the case and
subsequently acquitting the accused, President Marcos told them 'Okay, mag moro-moro na lamang kayo;' and that on their way out
of the room President Marcos expressed his thanks to the group and uttered 'I know how to reciprocate,' did not receive any denial
or contradiction either on the part of Justice Fernandez or Justice Pamaran. (No other person present in the conference was
presented by the respondents. Despite an earlier manifestation by the respondents of their intention to present Fiscal Bernabe and
Prosecutor Tamayo, such move was abandoned without any reason having been given therefor).

"The facts set forth above are all supported by the evidence on record. In the mind of the Commission, the only conclusion that may
be drawn therefrom is that pressure from Malacañang had indeed been made to bear on both the court and the prosecution in the
handling and disposition of the Aquino-Galman case. The intensity of this pressure is readily deductible from the personality of the
one who exerted it, his moral and official ascendancy over those to whom his instructions were directed, the motivation behind such
instructions, and the nature of the government prevailing at that time which enabled the then head of state to exercise authoritarian
powers. That the conference called to script or stage-manage the prosecution and trial of the Aquino-Galman case was considered as
something anomalous that should be kept away from the public eye is shown by the effort to assure its secrecy. None but those
directly involved were called to attend. The meeting was held in an inner room of the Palace. Only the First Lady and Presidential
Legal Assistant Justice Lazaro were with the President. The conferees were told to take the back door in going to the room where the
meeting was held, presumably to escape notice by the visitors in the reception hall waiting to see the President. Actually, no public
mention was ever made of this conference until Justice Herrera made his expose some fifteen (15) months later when the former
President was no longer around.

"President Marcos undoubtedly realized the importance of the matter he wanted to take up with the officials he asked to be
summoned. He had to do it personally, and not merely through trusted assistants. The lack of will or determination on the part of
Justice Fernandez and Justice Pamaran to resist the presidential summons despite their realization of its unwholesome implications
on their handling of the celebrated murder case may be easily inferred from their unquestioned obedience thereto. No effort to resist
was made, despite the existence of a most valid reason to beg off, on the lame excuses that they went there out of 'curiosity,' or 'out
of respect to the Office of the President,' or that it would be 'unbecoming to refuse a summons from the President.' Such frame of
mind only reveals their susceptibility to presidential pressure and lack of capacity to resist the same. The very acts of being
summoned to Malacañang and their ready acquiescence thereto under the circumstances then obtaining, are in themselves pressure
dramatized and exemplified. Their abject deference to President Marcos may likewise be inferred from the admitted fact that, not
having been given seats during the two-hour conference (Justice Fernandez said it was not that long, but did not say how long) in
which President Marcos did the talking most of the time, they listened to him on their feet. Verily, it can be said that any avowal of
independent action or resistance to presidential pressure became illusory from the very moment they stepped inside Malacañang
Palace on January 10, 1985."[18]
The Commission pinpointed the crucial factual issue thus: "the more significant inquiry is on whether the Sandiganbayan and the
Office of the Tanodbayan actually succumbed to such pressure, as may be gauged by their subsequent actuations in their respective
handling of the case." It duly concluded that "the pressure exerted by President Marcos in the conference held on January 10, 1985
pervaded the entire proceedings of the Aquino-Galman [murder] cases" as manifested in several specific incidents and instances it
enumerated in the Report under the heading of "Manifestations of Pressure and Manipulation."
Suffice it to give hereinbelow brief excerpts: —

1. The changing of the original Herrera panel draft Resolution charging all the twenty-six accused as principals by conspiracy by
categorizing and charging 17 as principals, Generals Ver and Olivas and 6 others as accessories and the civilian as accomplice, and
recommending bail for the latter two categories: "The categorization may not be completely justified by saying that, in the mind of
Justice Fernandez, there was no sufficient evidence to justify that all of the accused be charged as principals. The majority of the
Agrava Board found the existence of conspiracy and recommended that all of the accused be charged accordingly. Without going into
the merit of such finding, it may hardly be disputed that, in case of doubt, and in accordance with the standard practice of the
prosecution to charge accused with the most serious possible offense or in the highest category so as to prevent an incurable
injustice in the event that the evidence presented in the trial will show his guilt of the graver charge, the most logical and practical
course of action should have been, as originally recommended by the Herrera panel, to charge all the accused as principals. As it
turned out, Justice Fernandez readily opted for categorization which, not surprisingly, was in consonance with the Malacañang
instruction." It is too much to attribute to coincidence that such unusual categorization came only after the then President's
instruction at Malacañang when Gen. Ver's counsel Atty. Coronel, had been asking the same of Tanodbayan Fernandez since
November, 1984; and "Justice Fernandez himself, admit(ted) that, as of that time, [the Malacañang conference on January 10,
1985], his own view was in conformity with that of the Special Investigating Panel to charge all of the twenty-six (26) respondents
as principals of the crime of double murder.[19] As the Commission further noted, "Justice Fernandez never denied the claim of Justice
Herrera that the draft resolution of January 10, 1985 (Exhibit 'B-l') [charging all 26 accused as principals] was to have been the
subject of a press conference on the afternoon of said date which did not go through due to the summons for them to go to
Malacañang in the early evening of said date."[20]

2. Suppression of vital evidence and harassment of witnesses: "Realizing, no doubt, that a party's case is as strong as the evidence it
can present, unmistakable and persistent efforts were exerted in behalf of the accused to weaken the case of the prosecution and
thereby assure and justify [the accused's] eventual scripted acquittal. Unfavorable evidences were sought to be suppressed, and
some were indeed prevented from being ventilated. Adverse witnesses were harassed, cajoled, perjured or threatened either to
refrain from testifying or to testify in a manner favorable to the defense."

The Report specified the ordeals of the prosecution witnesses:[21] Cesar Loterina, PAL employee, Roberta Masibay, Galman's step-
daughter who recanted their testimonies before the Fact Finding Board and had to be discarded as prosecution witnesses before at
the trial. Witnesses Viesca and Rañas who also testified before the Board disappeared all of a sudden and could not be located by the
police. The Commission narrated the efforts to stifle Kiyoshi Wakamiya, eyewitness who accompanied Ninoy on his fateful flight on
August 21, 1983 and described them as "palpable, if crude and display(ing) sheer abuse of power." Wakamiya was not even allowed
to return to Manila on August 20, 1984 to participate in the first death anniversary of Ninoy but was deported as an undesirable alien
and had to leave on the next plane for Tokyo. The Board had to go to Tokyo to hear Wakamiya give his testimony before the
Japanese police in accordance with their law and Wakamiya claimed before the Commission that the English transcription of his
testimony, as prepared by an official of the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo, was inaccurate and did not correctly reflect the testimony
he gave "although there was no clear showing of the discrepancy from the original transcription which was in Nippongo. Upon his
arrival at the MIA on August 21, 1985 on invitation of Justice Herrera to testify at the ongoing trial, "a shot was fired and a soldier
was seen running away by media men who sought to protect Wakamiya from harm by surrounding him." Wakamiya was forced by
immigration officials to leave the country by Saturday (August 24th) notwithstanding Herrera's request to let him stay until he could
testify the following Monday (August 26th). In the case of principal eyewitness Rebecca Quijano, the Commission reported that
"x x x Undoubtedly in view of the considerable significance of her proposed testimony and its unfavorable effect on the cause of the
defense, the efforts exerted to suppress the same was as much as, if not more than those in the case of Wakamiya x x x She
recounted that she was in constant fear of her life, having been hunted by armed men; that their house in Tabaco, Albay was
ransacked, her family harassed by the foreclosure of the mortgage on their house by the local Rural Bank, and ejected therefrom
when she ignored the request of its manager to talk with her about her proposed testimony; that a certain William Farinas offered
her plane tickets for a trip abroad; that Mayor Rudy Farinas of Laoag City kept on calling her sister in the United States to warn her
not to testify; that, later, Rudy and William Farinas offered her two million pesos supposedly coming from Bongbong Marcos, a house
and lot in Baguio, the dropping of her estafa case in Hongkong, and the punishment of the persons responsible for the death of her
father, if she would refrain from testifying.

"It is a matter of record, however, that despite such cajolery and harassments, or perhaps because of them, Ms. Quijano eventually
testified before the Sandiganbayan. Justice Herrera was told by Justice Fernandez of the displeasure expressed by Olympus at Justice
Herrera's going out of his way to make Ms. Quijano to testify, and for his refusal to honor the invitation to attend the birthday party
of the First Lady on May 1, 1985, as on the eve of Ms. Quijano's testimony on May 2, 1985. The insiduous attempts to tamper with
her testimony, however, did not end with her taking the witness stand. In the course of her testimony several notes were passed to
Atty. Rodolfo Jimenez, the defense counsel who cross-examined her, one of which suggested that she be asked more questions
about Dean Narvasa who was suspected of having coached her as to what to declare (Exhibit 'D'); and on another occasion, at a
crucial point in her testimony, a power brownout occurred; which lasted for about twenty minutes, throwing the courtroom into
darkness, and making most of those present to scamper for safety, and Ms. Quijano to pass over the ratling of the rostrum so as to
be able to leave the courtroom. It was verified that the brownout was limited to the building housing the Sandiganbayan, it not
having affected the nearby Manila City Hall and the Finance Building Justice Herrera declared that the main switchboard of the
Sandiganbayan electrical system was located beside the room occupied by Malacañang people who were keeping track of the
proceedings."
Atty. Lupino Lazaro for petitioners further made of record at that August 26th hearing that the two Olivas sisters, Ana and Catherine
(hospitality girls) disappeared on September 4, 1984, two weeks after Ninoy's assassination. And the informant, by the name of
Evelyn (also a hospitality girl) who jotted down the number of the car that took them away, also disappeared. On January 29, 1984,
during the proceedings of the Board, Lina Galman, the common-law wife of Rolando Galman, was kidnapped together with a
neighbor named Rogelio Taruc. They have been missing since then, despite his attempts to find any of them. According to him,
"nobody was looking for these five persons because they said Marcos was in power [despite his appeal to the Minister of National
Defense to locate them]. Today, still no one is looking for these people." And he appealed to the new leadership for its assistance in
learning their fate.

3. The discarding of the affidavits executed bv U.S. airmen: "While it is true that the U.S. airmen's proposed testimonies would show
an attempt of the Philippine Air Force to divert the plane to Basa Airfield or some other place, such showing would not necessarily
contravene the theory of the prosecution, nor the actual fact that Senator Aquino was killed at the Manila International Airport.
Justice Herrera had accurately pointed out that such attempt of scrambling Aquino's plane merely showed a 'wider range of
conspiracy,' it being possibly just one of two or three other plans designed to accomplish the same purpose of liquidating Senator
Aquino. In any event, even assuming that the said piece of evidence could go either way, it may not be successfully contended that
it was prudent or wise on the part of the prosecution to totally discard the said piece of evidence. Despite minor inconsistencies
contained therein, its introduction could have helped the cause of the prosecution. If it were not so, or that it would even favor the
defense, as averred by Justice Fernandez, the determined effort to suppress the same would have been totally uncalled for.

"4. Nine proposed rebuttal witnesses not presented.

"5. The failure to exhaust available remedies against adverse developments: "When the Supreme Court denied the petition of Justice
Fernandez [against the exclusion of the testimonies given by the military respondents headed by Gen. Ver before the Fact Finding
Board], the latter almost immediately announced to media that he was not filing a motion for the reconsideration of said denial, for
the reason that it would be futile to do so and foolhardy to expect a favorable action on the same x x x His posture x x x is, in the
least, indicative that he was living up to the instruction of finishing the trial of the case as soon as possible, if not of something else.

"6. The assignment of the case to Presiding Justice Pamaran: "Justice Herrera testified that President Marcos ordered Justice
Pamaran point-blank to handle the case. The pro-forma denial by Justice Pamaran of such instruction crumbles under the actuality of
such directive having been complied with to the letter x x x.

"Justice Pamaran sought to discredit the claim that he was ordered by President Marcos to handle the case personally by explaining
that cases in the Sandiganbayan are assigned by raffle and not to a particular Justice, but to a division thereof. The evidence before
the Commission on how the case happened to be assigned to Justice Pamaran evinces a strong indication that such assignment was
not done fairly or regularly.

"There was no evidence at all that the assignment was indeed by virtue of a regular raffle, except the uncorroborated testimony of
Justice Pamaran x x x Despite an announcement that Justice Escareal would be presented by the respondents to testify on the
contents of his aforesaid Memorandum, such was not done. No reason was given why Justice Escarel could not, or would not like to
testify. Neither was anx one of the officials or employees of the Sandiganbayan who, according to Justice Pamaran, were present
during the supposed raffle, presented to corroborate the claim of Justice Pamaran as regards the said raffle.
xxx xxx xxx

"It is also an admitted fact that the two Informations in the double murder case were filed by Justice Herrera on January 23, 1985, at
12:02 p.m., and the members of the Raffle Committee were summoned at 12:20 p.m. or only 18 minutes after the filing of the two
Informations. Such speed in the actual assignment of the case can truly be categorized as unusual, if not extraordinary, considering
that before a case filed may be included in the raffle, there is need for a certain amount of paper work to be undertaken. If such
preliminary requirements were done in this case within the limited time available therefor, the charge that the raffle was rushed to
avoid the presence of media people would ring with truth.

"What is more intriguing is the fact that although a raffle might have been actually conducted which resulted in the assignment of
the case to the First Division of the Sandiganbayan, the Commission did not receive any evidence on how or why it was handled
personally by Justice Pamaran who wrote the decision thereof, and not by any one of the two other members of his division x x x"

7. The custody of the accused; their confinement in a military camp, instead of in a civilian jail: "When the question of custody came
up after the case was filed in the Sandiganbayan, the latter issued an order directing the confinement of the accused in the City Jail
of Manila. This order was not carried out in view of the information given by the Warden of the City Jail that there was no space for
the twenty-six accused in said jail. The same information was given when the custody was proposed to be given to the National
Penitentiary in Muntinglupa and to the National Bureau of Investigation. At that point, the defense came up with Presidential Decree
No. 1950-A which authorizes the custody of the accused military personnel with their respective Commanding Officers. Justice
Herrera claimed that the said Presidential Decree was not known even to the Tanodbayan Justice Fernandez who had to call up the
then Minister of Justice Estelito Mendoza to request a copy of the same, and was given such copy only after sometime x x x."

8. The monitoring of proceedings and developments from Malacañang and by Malacañang personnel. "There is an uncontradicted
evidence that the progress of the proceedings in the Sandiganbayan as well as the developments of the case outside the Court had
been monitored by Malacañang presumably for it to know what was happening and to take remedial measures as may be necessary,
Justice Pamaran had candidly admitted that television cameras "boldly carrying the label of 'Office of the President of the Philippines'
" were installed in the courtroom for that purpose. There was a room in the Sandiganbayan, mischievously called 'war room',
wherein military and Malacañang personnel stayed to keep track of the proceedings." The close monitoring by Malacañang showed its
results oh several occasions specified in the Report. Malacañang was immediately aware of the Japanese witness Wakamiya 's
presence in Justice Herrera's office on August 21, 1985 and forestalled the giving of his testimony by having the Japanese Embassy
advise Wakamiya to leave the country at once. Likewise, Col. Balbino Diego, Malacañang intelligence chief, suddenly appeared at the
National Bureau of Investigation office when the "crying lady" Rebecca Quijano was brought there by NBI agents for interrogation
and therein sought to obtain custody of her. "It is likewise an undisputed fact," the Commission noted "that several military
personnel pretended to be deputy sheriffs of the Sandiganbayan and attended the trials thereof in the prescribed deputy sheriffs'
uniforms." The Commission's inescapable finding: It is abundantly clear that President Marcos did not only give instructions as to
how the case should be handled. He saw to it that he would know if his instructions will be complied with.

9. Partiality of Sandiganbayan betrayed by its decision: That President Marcos had wanted ail of the twenty-six accused to be
acquitted may not be denied. The disposal of the case in said manner is an integral part of the scenario which was cleverly designed
to accomplish two principal objectives, seemingly conflicting in themselves, but favorable both to then administration and to the
accused; to wit, [1] the satisfaction of the public clamor for the suspected killers of Senator Aquino to be charged in court, and [2]
the foreclosure of any possibility that they may again be prosecuted for the same offense in the event that President Marcos shall no
longer be in power.

"In rendering its decision, the Sandiganbayan overdid itself in favoring the presidential directive. Its bias and partiality in favor of the
accused was glaringly obvious. The evidence presented by the prosecution was totally ignored and disregarded. x x x It was deemed
not sufficient to simply acquit all of the twenty-six accused on the standard ground that their guilt had not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt, as was the most logical and appropriate way of justifying the acquittal in the case, there not being a total absence
of evidence that could show guilt on the part of the accused. The decision had to pronounce them innocent of the crime charged on
the two intormations, and accordingly, they incur neither criminal nor civil liability. It is a rare phenomenon to see a person accused
of a crime to be favored with such total absolution. x x x.

"Doubt on the soundness of the decision entertained by one of the two justices who concurred with the majority decision penned by
Justice Pamaran was revealed by Justice Herrera who testified that in October, 1985, when the decision was being prepared, Justice
Augusto Amores told him that he was of the view that some of the accused should be convicted, he having found difficulty in
acquitting all of them; however, he confided to Justice Herrera that Justice Pamaran made it clear to him and Justice Vera Cruz that
Malacañang had instructions to acquit all of the twenty-six accused (TSN. July 17, 1986, p. 49). Justice Amores also told Justice
Herrera that he would confirm this statement (which was mentioned in Justice Herrera's comment to the Second Motion for
Reconsideration) if asked about it (TSN, June 19, 1986, pp. 92-93). This testimony of Justice Herrera remained unrebutted." (Italics
supplied).

The record shows suffocatingly that from beginning to end, the then President used, or more precisely, misused the overwhelming
resources of the government and his authoritarian powers to corrupt and make a mockery of the judicial process in the Aquino-
Galman murder cases. As graphically depicted in the Report, supra, and borne out by the happenings (res ipsa loquitura[22]), since
the resolution prepared by his "Coordinator," Manuel Lazaro, his Presidential Assistant on Legal Affairs, for the Tanodbayan's
dismissal of the cases against all accused was unpalatable (it would summon the demonstrators back to the streets[23]) and at any
rate was not acceptable to the Herrera prosecution panel, the unholy scenario for acquittal of all 26 accused after the rigged trial as
ordered at the Malacañang conference, would accomplish the two principal objectives of satisfaction of the public clamor for the
suspected killers to be charged in court and of giving them through their acquittal the legal shield of double jeopardy. [24]
Indeed, the secret Malacañang conference at which the authoritarian President called together the Presiding Justice of the
Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan Fernandez and the entire prosecution panel headed by Deputy Tanodbayan Herrera and told them
how to handle and rig (moro-moro) the trial and the close monitoring of the entire proceedings to assure the predetermined
ignominious final outcome are without parallel and precedent in our annals and jurisprudence. To borrow a phrase from Ninoy's April
14, 1975 letter withdrawing his petition for habeas corpus,[25] "This is the evil of one-man rule at its very worst." Our Penal Code
penalizes "any executive officer who shall address any order or suggestion to any judicial authority with respect to any case or
business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice."[26] His obsession for "the boys" acquittal led to several first
which would otherwise be inexplicable: —

1. He turned his back on and repudiated the findings of the very Fact Finding Board that he himself appointed to investigate the
"national tragedy and national shame" of the "treacherous and vicious assassination of Ninoy Aquino" and to ventilate the truth
through free, independent and dispassionate investigation by prestigious and free investigators.

2. He cordially received the chairman with her minority report one day ahead of the four majority members and instantly referred it
to respondents "for final resolution through the legal system" as if it were the majority and controlling report; and rebuked the four
majority members when they presented to him the next day their report calling for the indictment of all 26 respondents headed by
Gens. Ver and Olivas (instead of the lesser seven under the chairman's minority report).

3. From the day after the Aquino assassination to the dictated verdict of acquittal, he totally disregarded the Board's majority and
minority findings of fact and publicly insisted that the military's "fall guy" Rolando Galman was the killer of Ninoy Aquino and sought
futilely to justify the soldiers' incompetence and gross negligence to provide any security for Ninoy in contrast to their alacrity in
gunning down the alleged assassin Galman and sealing his lips.

4. The Sandiganbayan's decision (Pamaran, J. ponente) in effect convicted Rolando Galman as Ninoy's assassin notwithstanding that
he was not on trial but the victim according to the very information filed, and evidence to the contrary submitted, by the Herrera
prosecution panel; and

5. Justice Pamaran's ponencia (despite reservations expressed by Justice Amores who wanted to convict some of the accused)
granted all 26 accused total absolution and pronounced them "innocent of the crimes charged in the two informations, and
accordingly, they incur neither criminal nor civil liability," notwithstanding the evidence on the basis of which the Fact Finding Board
had unanimously declared the soldiers' version of Galman being Aquino's killer a "perjured story, given deliberately and in conspiracy
with one another."

The fact of the secret Malacañang conference of January 10, 1985 at which the authoritarian President discussed with the Presiding
Justice of the Sandiganbayan and the entire prosecution panel the matter of the imminent filing of the criminal charges against all
the twenty-six accused (as admitted by respondent Justice Fernandez to have been confirmed by him to the then President's
"Coordinator" Manuel Lazaro on the preceding day) is not denied. It is without precedent. This was illegal under our penal laws,
supra. This illegality vitiated from the very beginning all proceedings in the Sandiganbayan court headed by the very Presiding
Justice who attended. As the Commission noted: "The very acts of being summoned to Malacañang and their ready acquiescence
thereto under the circumstances then obtaining, are in themselves pressure dramatized and exemplified x x x Verily, it can be said
that any avowal of independent action or resistance to presidential pressure became illusory from the very moment they stepped
inside Malacañang Palace on January 10, 1985."

No court whose Presiding Justice has received "orders or suggestions" from the very President who by an amendatory decree
(disclosed only at the hearing of oral arguments on November 8, 1984 on a petition challenging the referral of the Aquino-Galman
murder cases to the Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan instead of to a court martial, as mandatory required by the known P.D. 1850 at
the time providing for exclusive jurisdiction of courts martial over criminal offenses committed by military men[26-a]) made it possible
to refer the cases to the Sandiganbayan, can be an impartial court, which is the very essence of due process of law. As the writer
then wrote, "jurisdiction over cases should be determined by law, and not by preselection of the Executive, which could be much too
easily transformed into a means of predetermining the outcome of individual cases."[26-b] This criminal collusion as to the handling
and treatment of the cases by public respondents at the secret Malacañang conference (and revealed only after fifteen months by
Justice Manuel Herrera) completely disqualified respondent Sandiganbayan and voided ab initio its verdict. This renders moot and
irrelevant for now the extensive arguments of respondents accused, particularly Generals Ver and Olivas and those categorized as
accessories, that there has been no evidence or witness suppressed against them, that the erroneous conclusions of Olivas as police
investigator do not make him an accessory of the crimes he investigated and the appraisal and evaluation of the testimonies of the
witnesses presented and suppressed. There will be time and opportunity to present all these arguments and considerations at the
remand and retrial of the cases herein ordered before a neutral and impartial court.

The Supreme Court cannot permit such a sham trial and verdict and travesty of justice to stand unrectified. The courts of the land
under its aegis are courts of law and justice and equity. They would have no reason to exist if they were allowed to be used as mere
tools of injustice, deception and duplicity to subvert and suppress the truth, instead of repositories of judicial power whose judges
are sworn and committed to render impartial justice to all alike who seek the enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention
or redress of a wrong, without fear or favor and removed from the pressures of politics and prejudice. More so, in the case at bar
where the people and the world are entitled to know the truth, and the integrity of our judicial system is at stake. In life, as an
accused before the military tribunal Ninoy had pleaded in vain that as a civilian he was entitled to due process of law and trial in the
regular civil courts before an impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor. In death, Ninoy, as the victim of the "treacherous and
vicious assassination" and the relatives and sovereign people as the aggrieved parties plead once more for due process of law and a
retrial before an impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor. The Court is constrained to declare the sham trial a mock trial — the
non-trial of the century — and that the predetermined judgment of acquittal was unlawful and void ab initio.

1. No double jeopardy. — It is settled doctrine that double jeopardy cannot be invoked against this Court's setting aside of the trial
courts' judgment of dismissal or acquittal where the prosecution which represents the sovereign people in criminal cases is denied
due process. As the Court stressed in the 1985 case of People vs. Bocar,[27]
"Where the prosecution is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case, its right to due process is thereby
violated.[27-a]

"The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted of their jurisdiction. Thus, the
violation of the State's right to due process raises a serious jurisdictional issue (Gumabon vs. Director of the Bureau of Prisons, L-
30026, 37 SCRA 420 [Jan. 30, 1971] which cannot be glossed over or disregarded at will. Where the denial of the fundamental right
of due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction (Aducayen vs. Flores, L-30370
[May 25, 19731, 51 SCRA 78; Shell Co. vs. Enage, L-30111-12, 49 SCRA 416 Feb. 27, 1973]). Any judgment or decision rendered
notwithstanding such violation may be regarded as a 'lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored
wherever it exhibits its head' (Aducayen vs. Flores, supra).

"Respondent Judge's dismissal order dated July 7, 1967 being null and void for lack of jurisdiction, the same does not constitute a
proper basis for a claim of double jeopardy (Serino vs. Zosa, supra).
xxx xxx xxx
"Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea
having been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused (People
vs. Ylagan, 58 Phil. 851). The lower court was not competent as it was ousted of its jurisdiction when it violated the right of the
prosecution to due process.

"In effect, the first jeopardy was never terminated, and the remand of the criminal case for further hearing and/or trial before the
lower courts amounts merely to a continuation of the first jeopardy, and does not expose the accused to a second jeopardy."
More so does the rule against the invoking of double jeopardy hold in the cases at bar where as we have held, the sham trial was but
a mock trial where the authoritarian president ordered respondents Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan to rig the trial and closely
monitored the entire proceedings to assure the predetermined final outcome of acquittal and total absolution as innocent of all the
respondents-accused. Notwithstanding the laudable efforts of Justice Herrera which saw him near the end "deactivating" himself
from the case, as it was his belief that its eventual resolution was already a foregone conclusion, they could not cope with the misuse
and abuse of the overwhelming powers of the authoritarian President to weaken the case of the prosecution, to suppress its
evidence, harass, intimidate and threaten its witnesses, secure their recantation or prevent them from testifying. Fully aware of the
prosecution's difficulties in locating witnesses and overcoming their natural fear and reluctance to appear and testify, respondent
Sandiganbayan maintained a "dizzying tempo" of the proceedings and announced its intention to terminate the proceedings in about
6 months time or less than a year, pursuant to the scripted scenario. The prosecution complained of "the Presiding Justice's
seemingly hostile attitude towards (it)" and their being the subject of warnings, reprimand and contempt proceedings as compared
to the nil situation for the defense. Herrera likewise complained of being "cajoled into producing witnesses and pressed on making
assurances that if given a certain period, they will be able to produce their witnesses," Herrera pleaded for "a reasonable period of
preparation of its evidence" and cited other pending cases before respondent court that were pending trial for a much longer time
where the "dizzying tempo" and "fast pace" were not maintained by the court.[28] Manifestly, the prosecution and the sovereign
people were denied due process of law with a partial court and biased Tanodbayan under the constant and pervasive monitoring and
pressure exerted by the authoritarian President to assure the carrying out of his instructions. A dictated, coerced and scripted verdict
of acquittal such as that in the case at bar is a void judgment. In legal contemplation, it is no judgment at all. It neither binds nor
bars anyone. Such a judgment is "a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw". It is a terrible and unspeakable affront to the
society and the people. To paraphrase Brandeis:[29] If the authoritarian head of the government becomes the lawbreaker, he breeds
contempt for the law, he invites every man to become a law unto himself, he invites anarchy.

Respondents-accused's contention that the Sandiganbayan judgment of acquittal ends the case which cannot be appealed or
reopened, without being put in double jeopardy was forcefully disposed of by the Court in People vs. Court of Appeals, which is fully
applicable here, as follows: That is the general rule and presupposes a valid judgment. As earlier pointed out, however, respondent
Courts' Resolution of acquittal was a void judgment for having been issued without jurisdiction. No double jeopardy attaches,
therefore. A void judgment is, in legal effect, no judgment at all. By it no rights are divested. Through it, no rights can be attained.
Being worthless, all proceedings founded upon it are equally worthless. It neither binds nor bars anyone. All acts performed under it
and all claims flowing out of it are void.
xxx xxx xxx

Private respondent invoke 'justice for the innocent'. For justice to prevail, the scales must balance. It is not to be dispensed for the
accused alone. The interests of the society, which they have wronged must also be equally considered. A judgment of conviction is
not necessarily a denial of justice. A verdict of acquittal neither necessarily spells a triumph of justice. To the party wronged, to the
society offended, it could also mean injustice. This is where the Courts play a vital role. They render justice where justice is due.[30]

2. Motion to Disqualify/Inhibit should have been resolved ahead. - The private prosecutors had filed a motion to disqualify and for
inhibition of respondents Justices of the Sandiganbayan on grounds of manifest bias and partiality to the defense and arising from
then Atty. (now Tanodbayan) Raul M. Gonzales' charge that Justice Vera-Cruz had been passing coaching notes to defense counsel.
Justice Herrera had joined the motion and pleaded at the hearing of June 25, 1985 and in the prosecution memorandum that
respondent Sandiganbayan "should not decide the case on the merits without first making a final ruling on the Motion for Inhibition."
Herrera quoted the exchange between him and the Presiding Justice to show the latter's "following the script of Malacañang" -
"PJ PAMARAN

"Well, the court believes that we should proceed with the trial and then deal later on with that. After all the most important thing
here is, shall we say, the decision of the case."

"J. HERRERA

I think more important than the decision of the case, Your Honor, is the capacity of the Justices to sit in judgment. That is more
important than anything else." (p. 13 TSN, June 25, 1985) (Italics supplied by Herrera)." [31]
But the Sandiganbayan brushed aside Herrera's pleas and then wrongly blamed him, in the decision, for supposedly not having
joined the petition for inhibition, contrary to the facts above-stated, as follows:
"x x x the motion for inhibition above referred to related exclusively for the contempt proceeding. Too, it must be remembered that
the prosecution neither joined that petition, nor did it at any time manifest a desire to file a similar motion prior to the submission of
these cases for decision. To do it now is not alone out of season but is also a confession of official insouciance." (Page 22,
Decision).[32]
The action for prohibition was filed in the Court to seek the disqualification of respondents Justices pursuant to the procedure
recognized by the Court in the 1969 case of Paredes vs. Gopengco[33] since an adverse ruling by respondent court might result in a
verdict of acquittal, leaving the offended party without any remedy nor appeal in view of the double jeopardy rule, not to mention
the overriding and transcendental public interest that would make out a case of denial of due process to the People if the alleged
failure on the part of the Tanodbayan to present the complete evidence for the prosecution is substantiated.[34]

In this case, petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the abrupt dismissal of their petition and lifting of the temporary restraining
order enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision had been taken cognizance of by the Court which had required the
respondents', including the Sandiganbayan's, comments. Although no restraining order was issued anew, respondent Sandiganbayan
should not have precipitately issued its decision of total absolution of all the accused pending the final action of this Court. This is the
teaching of Valdez vs. Aquilizan,[35] wherein the court in setting aside the hasty convictions, ruled that "prudence dictated that
(respondent judge) refrain from deciding the cases or at the very least to hold in abeyance the promulgation of his decision pending
action by this Court. But prudence gave way to imprudence; the respondent judge acted precipitately by deciding the cases [hastily
without awaiting this Court's action]. All of the acts of the respondent judge manifest grave abuse of discretion on his part
amounting to lack of jurisdiction which substantively prejudiced the petitioner."

3. Re: Objections of respondents. - The other related objections of respondents' counsels must be rejected in the face of the Court's
declaration that the trial was a mock trial and that the predetermined judgment of acquittal was unlawful and void ab initio.

(a) It follows that there is no need to resort to a direct action to annul the judgment, instead of the present action which was timely
filed initially to declare a mistrial and to enjoin the rendition of the void judgment. And after the hasty rendition of such judgment for
the declaration of its nullity, following the presentation of competent proof heard by the Commission and the Court's findings
therefrom that the proceedings were from the beginning vitiated not only by lack of due process but also by the collusion between
the public respondents (court and Tanodbayan) for the rendition of a predetermined verdict of acquitting all the twenty-six
respondents-accused.

(b) It is manifest that this does not involve a case of mere irregularities in the conduct of the proceedings or errors of judgment
which do not affect the integrity or validity of the judgment or verdict.

(c) The contention of one of defense counsel that the State and the sovereign people are not entitled to due process is clearly
erroneous and contrary to the basic principles and jurisprudence cited hereinabove.

(d) The submittal of respondents-accused that they had not exerted the pressure applied by the authoritarian president on public
respondents and that no evidence was suppressed against them must be held to be untenable in the wake of the evil plot now
exposed for their preordained wholesale exoneration.

(e) Respondents' invocation of the writer's opinion in Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc. vs. Maritime Bldg. Co., Inc.[36] is inappropriate.
The writer therein held that a party should be entitled to only one Supreme Court and may not speculate on vital changes in the
Court's membership for review of his lost case once more, since public policy and sound practice demand that litigation be put to an
end and no second pro forma motion for reconsideration reiterating the same arguments should be kept pending so long (for over six
(6) years and one (1) month since the denial of the first motion for reconsideration). This opinion cannot be properly invoked,
because here, petitioners' second motion for reconsideration was filed promptly on March 20, 1986 following the denial under date of
February 4th of the first motion for reconsideration and the same was admitted per the Court's Resolution of April 3, 1986 and is
now being resolved within five months of its filing after the Commission had received the evidence of the parties who were heard by
the Court only last August 26th. Then, the second motion for reconsideration is based on an entirely new material ground which was
not known at the time of the denial of the petition and filing of the first motion for reconsideration, i.e, the secret Malacañang
conference on January 10, 1985 which came to light only fifteen months later in March, 1986 and showed beyond per adventure (as
proved in the Commission hearings) the merits of the petition and that the authoritarian president had dictated and predetermined
the final outcome of acquittal. Hence, the ten members of the Court (without any new appointees) unanimously voted to admit the
second motion for reconsideration.[37]

4. With the declaration of nullity of the proceedings, the cases must now be tried before an impartial court with an unbiased
prosecutor. — There has been the long dark night of authoritarian regime, since the fake ambush in September, 1972 of then
Defense Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile (as now admitted by Enrile himself) was staged to trigger the imposition of martial law and
authoritarian one-man rule, with the padlocking of Congress and the abolition of the office of the Vice-President.

As recently retired Senior Justice Vicente Abad Santos recalled in his valedictory to the new members of the Bar last May, "In the
past few years, the judiciary was under heavy attack by an extremely powerful executive. During this state of judicial siege, lawyers
both in and outside the judiciary perceptively surrendered to the animus of technicality. In the end, morality was overwhelmed by
technicality, so that the latter emerged ugly and naked in its true manifestation."

Now that the light is emerging, the Supreme Court faces the task of restoring public faith and confidence in the courts. The Supreme
Court enjoys neither the power of the sword nor of the purse. Its strength has mainly in public confidence, based on the truth and
moral force of its judgments. This has been built on its cherished traditions of objectivity and impartiality, integrity and fairness and
unswerving loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law which compels acceptance as well by the leadership as by the people. The
lower courts draw their bearings from the Supreme Court. With this Court's judgment today declaring the nullity of the questioned
judgment or acquittal and directing a new trial, there must be a rejection of the temptation of becoming instruments of injustice as
vigorously as we rejected becoming its victims. The end of one form of injustice should not become simply the beginning of another.
This simply means that the respondents accused must now face trial for the crimes charged against them before an impartial court
with an unbiased prosecutor with all due process. What the past regime had denied the people and the aggrieved parties in the sham
trial must now be assured as much to the accused as to the aggrieved parties. The people will assuredly have a way of knowing
when justice has prevailed as well as when it has failed.

The notion nurtured under the past regime that those appointed to public office owe their primary allegiance to the appointing
authority and are accountable to him alone and not to the people or the Constitution must be discarded. The function of the
appointing authority with the mandate of the people, under our system of government, is to fill the public posts. While the appointee
may acknowledge with gratitude the opportunity thus given of rendering public service, the appointing authority becomes functus
officio and the primary loyalty of the appointed must be rendered to the Constitution and the sovereign people in accordance with his
sacred oath of office. To paraphrase the late Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court, the Justices and judges
must ever realize that they have no constituency, serve no majority nor minority but serve only the public interest as they see it in
accordance with their oath of office, guided only the Constitution and their own conscience and honor.

5. Note of Commendation. — The Court expresses its appreciation with thanks for the invaluable services rendered by the
Commission composed of retired Supreme Court Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, chairman, and retired Court of Appeals Justices
Milagros German and Eduardo Caguioa as members. In the pure spirit of public service, they rendered selflessly and without
remuneration thorough, competent and dedicated service in discharging their tasks of hearing and receiving the evidence, evaluating
the same and submitting their Report and findings to the Court within the scheduled period and greatly easing the Court's burden.

ACCORDINGLY, petitioners' second motion for reconsideration is granted. The resolutions of November 28, 1985 dismissing the
petition and of February 4, 1986 denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration are hereby set aside and in lieu thereof, judgment is
hereby rendered nullifying the proceedings in respondent Sandiganbayan and its judgment of acquittal in Criminal Cases Nos. 10010
and 10011 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Gen. Luther Custodio, et al." and ordering a re-trial of the said cases which should
be conducted with deliberate dispatch and with careful regard for the requirements of due process, so that the truth may be finally
known and justice done to all.

This resolution is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Yap, Cruz, Paras, and Feliciano, JJ., concur.

Feria, Fernan, and Narvasa, JJ., took no part.
Feliciano, J., joins Gutierrez, Jr., J., in his statements in the last three paragraphs (prior to the dispositive paragraph) of his Separate
Concurring Opinion.
Melencio-Herrera, Alampay, and Gutierrez, JJ., see separate opinion.